Read a Google Sheet range

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the access prerequisite (user must have picked the file), the error behavior (file not found indicates user hasn't picked it), and the return type (2-D array). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent handle edge cases correctly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: it starts with the core action, explains access, then the parameter options, error handling, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most important information and avoids unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to specify the target, error handling, and return type. It even provides a pointer to list_drive_files for finding the ID. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds meaning by clarifying that spreadsheetId and sheetUrl are alternatives and where each comes from, reinforcing the schema. It also explains the default range indirectly through the schema. The extra context about the relationship between parameters and the access model goes beyond the schema, so a score above baseline is warranted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (read cells from a Google Sheet) and the scope (sheets Hermoso can reach, distinguishing from other sheet tools like append_to_sheet or update_sheet). It also explains the access model (created or user-picked) and provides the return format, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives practical usage guidance: how to obtain the spreadsheetId (via create_sheet or list_drive_files) and that you can alternatively pass a URL as sheetUrl. It also advises on error handling (if file not found, ask user to pick it rather than retrying). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read tools, it covers the when and how effectively.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.